The thing with this nostalgia trip that everyone ties to vinyl and 35mm: it's not nostalgia for the medium that you're feeling, it's nostalgia for the period of your life in which you first experienced the medium.

You don't prefer watching a scratchy 35mm print because it's the better medium: you watch it because it reminds you of your younger days, childhood, or whatever. That's not really a stable foundation on which to ground an opinion about technical qualities, IMO.

Our kids prefer digital, and think colour 35mm looks crap. We prefer colour 35mm (cos it reminds us of our saturday trips to the cinema), and our grandparents think it's crap compared to black and white. Our grandparents like black and white films (cos it reminds them of the war), and their grandparents think that being around things which arouse the emotion like music and certain books is a mortal sin (because they were stuffy victorians). The whole thing's a circle-jerk.

I suppose you're right, Craigy. (Although with records you're kinda not. With records I didn't really have them as a kid. With records I like them because they require you to participate in the listening of music. You have to turn sides. Look after the object itself. They almost deman you listen to the record and not do anything else. You can't take the. Out with you. But that's a rant for another day)

But I do think mainstream films are getting shitter. And noisier. And 35mm HAD something.

Those infinite number of monkeys that are supposed to knock out the works of Shakespeare? Ten of them took a cigarette break and wrote the script for this shit.

If you got through the first hour without thinking "The fuck?" you're a better man than I. I had to wait ninety minutes for one gimp to get karate-chopped in the throat. Matt Damon would have sorted this shit out in fifteen minutes flat.

I also miss projectionists. Not because I care about the clatter and reel change blips but because when I went to see Super 8 it was shown out of focus for the entire fucking duration despite me and another guy going out to complain about it.

The person who knew hw to fix it wasn't on the premise.

If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

Very, very 80s, but definitely worth a watch just to see Brian Cox's portrayal of Hannibal Lector. There's got to be an argument for saying Cox's Lector is the superior one, as it's less camp, pantomime villainy than Hopkins'.

7/10

P.s. apologies for interrupting the resolution discussion with a review... ;P

Tonka wrote:
I also miss projectionists. Not because I care about the clatter and reel change blips but because when I went to see Super 8 it was shown out of focus for the entire fucking duration despite me and another guy going out to complain about it.

The person who knew hw to fix it wasn't on the premise.

I had that for the first 40 minutes of The Hobbit, so I asked for and got my money back.

Very, very 80s, but definitely worth a watch just to see Brian Cox's portrayal of Hannibal Lector. There's got to be an argument for saying Cox's Lector is the superior one, as it's less camp, pantomime villainy than Hopkins'.

7/10

P.s. apologies for interrupting the resolution discussion with a review... ;P

Not sure I was hating as such, just think that his performance was OTT.... but then Hannibal was an OTT character in a lot of ways, so I guess that's the point. Besides, it wouldn't so much be Hopkins' approach as that of the director, it's just easier to refer to one as Hopkins' Hannibal and the other as Cox's.

As for the sequel 'Hannibal', that has to go down as one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. Have you read the book? The ending for that takes an even more ridiculous turn in the end. Laughably bad.

Come to think of it, I can't remember whether I saw the film or read the book first. Either way, I wonder what the hell I was thing: the book should've put me off the film and the film should've warned me off the book.

Disappointed. Main gripe? I hated every damn character. Also seriously slowed down. Wouldn't have minded but, as I say, hated everyone in it. Couldn't connect. Bruce was wasted, Gordon Levitt was a dick, kid was creepy and just wanted it to end.

Sound bad? Yeah. But also. Some nice touches, good dialogue and decent direction. Still, not enough.

My admiration for Christoph Waltz has blossomed into a full-blown mancrush. Also, I wish I could grow my moustache to twirlable levels. Alas, I cannot.

Despite my enjoyment of Django, it doesn't live up to Tarantino's previous efforts IMO. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's the 'worst' Tarantino film. (I haven't seen Jackie Brown, though, for what it's worth.)

A generous 8/10

Mad Max

Glorious bit of 80s. Mel Gibson was quite a handsome young chap... albeit with an all-too recognisable glint of craziness in his eyes.

Despite the dark subject matter and post-apocalyptic setting, I found the movie to be uplifting. It's probably due to the costumes, campy villains and hilarious dialogue.